|
|
|
The debate is always the same, "Is this art?". The question sparks many ideas and even more responses. Art is such a personal, psychological, and physiological experience to a person, that all responses tend to be different. It should be in the artist's missions that we can determine the validity of their art. If they hold themselves true to their beliefs, it is riskier than conforming to society. Art is an element that can cross cultural barriers and reach a wide variety of people. Yes, it is true that they might have a different perspective due to their surroundings, but it still sparks an response. For instance, critics in Germany, Italy, and European Continents thought that Warhol's work was not shallow and simplistic, but deep, complex, critical and rooted in art history. Americans were just too uncultured to understand (Protzman). Art is constant with the times, it is what the public yearns for, at least this is the case with Pop Art. The everyday public responded positively to this new type of art because it was refreshing and new. It is speculated upon why they admired it, because it was familiar or for artistic values, but there is not an answer to the question. The critics felt otherwise. The New York Times in 1963 wrote that Lichtenstein was, "One of the worst artists in America... an academic draftsman retooled to blow up comic strips." (Scherman, 69). Warhol was seen as capitalism's cheerleader through some of his comments. He once said, "Making money is art and work is art and good business is the best art." (Fox). This art was embodied in what society was experiencing, what they were buying and the culture they were consuming. It is the mass media that tended to be harsh on their work |
|